Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)qqpublished in(发表于) 2013/11/21 1:39:04 Supreme Court： access quality of judges for the case the first responsible person
People's daily Beijing, November 21 (Li Nannan) this morning, the Supreme People's Court for preventing wronged and misjudged cases mechanisms devoted to the introduction of the Supreme People's Court on the work of establishing and perfecting the working mechanism of preventing criminal wronged and misjudged cases (hereinafter referred to as the views), head of the Supreme People's Court criminal divisions answering a reporter's question on the comments.
What specific work had been stipulated in the comments, is based largely on what to consider? In this regard, the Court of the Supreme People's Court convicted three official said that based on the actual trial, sets out four main areas of work, namely, review mechanisms, mechanisms for cases of evidence, review oversight mechanism and restriction mechanism.
First, the strict implementation of legal standards of proof, strengthened evidence review mechanisms. Wronged and misjudged cases, tracing the facts and evidence issue. Therefore, preventing wronged and misjudged cases, the key is locked, evidence of the facts of the case well. Of the opinion of the principles of evidence-based referee, from clear proof standards, attention to the physical evidence, excluding illegal evidence reinforces the evidence of review mechanisms. The problem previously described, are not expanded here.
Second is the effective compliance with due process, mechanisms for enhanced case. Hearing is the core facts, evidence. To insure against the wronged and misjudged cases, should establish a "judicial Centre" and the "Audiencia" concept and to improve related institutional mechanisms. Opinion has the following main provisions: first, trials should be based on trial Center. To truly factual evidence in the Court, conviction and sentencing debated in the courts, decisions resulting in court. Second, we must strictly adhere to the principles cannot be certified without cross-examination, evidence has not been produced to the Court, identification, examination, investigation procedures of the Tribunal verified shall not be used as the basis for deciding cases. Third, we need to conscientiously implement the witness testifying system. Legally must testify in the witness refused to testify after there is no justification for refusing to testify or appear in court, pretrial depositions could not confirm the authenticity of the shall not be used as the basis for deciding cases. IV, to effective protection of the defendant and his counsel in the trial, examination questions, debates and other proceedings of the rights. Submitted by the defendant and his defenders excuse, submissions and submission of evidence, should be in court or in judgment document the reasons for acceptance or not. V, to scrutinize the facts of the case in accordance with law, evidence. Conviction evidence in doubt need to investigate people's Procuratorate added, if the people's Procuratorate within two months did not submit written materials shall be determined according to put on evidence to render a decision in accordance with law.
Third, fulfill guard duties in cases, improve the review oversight mechanism. In order to detect errors, to correct the error in the proceedings, the law sets a lot of review oversight mechanism, the essential role of cases of them should give full play to. Opinion has the following main provisions: first, full Court, Judiciary Committee investigation responsibilities must be clear. Members of the collegial panel jointly responsible for quality of the case, the contractor first responsible of the quality of judges for the case. Death penalty cases, hosted by experienced judges. Members of the collegial panel review facts and evidence, including through trial or scoring, independently made the comments and rationale. Discussion of the case of the Judicial Committee members on the basis of the advice full Court review, followed by an independent comment and rationale, and moderator last comment. Requirements set out above, reflects the 18 in the decision of the third plenary session, "judge trial referee, responsible for" the spirit. Second, to straighten out the one or two trial-level functions between the Court of first instance. Sentence unclear facts, insufficient evidence, the Court of second instance after ascertaining the facts may not be sent back for a retrial. Unclear facts, insufficient evidence to be sent back for a retrial of the case, after the appeal or protest shall not be again sent back for a retrial. Subordinate courts shall not be jurisdictional level by lowering the case to avoid the superior people's court supervision. Shall not determine the issues of fact and evidence the superior people's Court. These provisions, for the realization of 18 in the decision of the third plenary session "clear orientation of courts function, regulating the relationship subordinate courts civil trial supervision" requirement. Third, we need to attach great importance to the quality of handling death penalty cases to ensure that death penalty cases "zero error". Review of death penalty cases, shall interrogate the defendant. Requested by defence counsel, should listen to their views. Evidence possessed of doubts, should investigation and verification, if necessary, to investigate into the incident. IV, to establish and improve the scientific, reasonable and in line with judicial law case performance appraisal system. Significant, difficult and complex cases, cannot be disposed of within statutory time limit, it shall report it to the extension of the trial period. Not appeal rate revision rate, remand rates for individual assessment index evaluation of work quality and effectiveness.
Four is to give full play to the parties, establish and improve the mechanism. Prevention of wronged and misjudged cases, not only to strengthen the courts and the judges the duty to act more actively enlist the support of all sectors of the community. Opinion has the following main provisions: first, the trial must be strictly in accordance with legal procedures and responsibilities. People's courts shall not be combined with public security organs and people's procuratorates handling. Second, to give full play to the defence counsel's important role in preventing the wronged and misjudged cases. Effective protection of defence rights defenders meet, grading, investigation and evidence collection. Counsel to apply for access to prove innocence, crime evidence, should be allowed. Third, we need to adhere to the mass line of Justice actively enlist the support of the masses. Significant, difficult and complex cases, can invite deputies to the NPC and CPPCC representatives attending the guanshen, grass-roots masses. IV, do have a right to air their grievances complaints and appeals, the worker shall be reviewed. The original judgment or written order errors, corrected in a timely manner according to the law. V, we should establish and improve judges accountability accountability in handling cases. Judge shall perform their duties without accountability. The trial judge handling the case violated work discipline or the law for selfish ends, in accordance with the legal provisions related to trial work discipline and accountability.
人民网北京11月21日电 （李楠楠）今日上午，最高人民法院针对防范冤假错案的工作机制问题专门出台《最高人民法院关于建立健全防范刑事冤假错案工作机制的意见》（以下简称《意见》），最高人民法院刑三庭负责人就《意见》答记者问。
《意见》规定了哪些具体的工作机制，主要是基于什么考虑？对此，最高人民法院刑三庭负责人表示，立足审判实际，《意见》主要规定了四个方面的工作机制，分别是证据审查机制、案件审理机制、审核监督机制和制约机制。
一是严格执行法定证明标准，强化证据审查机制。冤假错案之所以发生，追根溯源是事实、证据出现问题。因此，防范冤假错案，关键是把好案件的事实关、证据关。《意见》基于证据裁判原则，从明确证明标准、重视实物证据、排除非法证据等方面强化了证据审查机制。该问题前面已经介绍，这里不再展开。
二是切实遵守法定诉讼程序，强化案件审理机制。庭审是事实、证据调查的核心环节。为防范冤假错案，要树立“审判中心”和“庭审中心”的观念，并完善相关的制度机制。《意见》主要有以下规定：第一，审判案件应当以庭审为中心。要真正做到事实证据调查在法庭，定罪量刑辩论在法庭，裁判结果形成于法庭。第二，要严格遵守未经质证不得认证原则，证据未经当庭出示、辨认、质证等法庭调查程序查证属实，不得作为定案的根据。第三，要认真落实证人出庭作证制度。对于依法应当出庭作证的证人没有正当理由拒绝出庭或者出庭后拒绝作证，其庭前证言真实性无法确认的，不得作为定案的根据。第四，要切实保障被告人及其辩护人在庭审中的发问、质证、辩论等诉讼权利。对于被告人及其辩护人提出的辩解理由、辩护意见和提交的证据材料，应当当庭或者在裁判文书中说明采纳与否的理由。第五，要依法严格审查案件的事实、证据。定罪证据存疑需要人民检察院补充调查的，如人民检察院在二个月内未提交书面材料，应当根据在案证据依法作出裁判。
三是认真履行案件把关职责，完善审核监督机制。为了在诉讼程序内及时发现错误、纠正错误，法律设置了诸多审核监督机制，要充分发挥这些机制的案件把关作用。《意见》主要有以下规定：第一，要明确合议庭、审判委员会的办案职责。合议庭成员共同对案件质量负责，承办法官为案件质量第一责任人。死刑案件，由经验丰富的法官承办。合议庭成员通过庭审或者阅卷等方式审查事实和证据，独立发表评议意见并说明理由。审判委员会讨论案件，委员要在听取合议庭审查意见的基础上，依次独立发表意见并说明理由，主持人最后发表意见。上述规定的要求，体现了十八届三中全会《决定》中“让审理者裁判、由裁判者负责”的精神。第二，要理顺一、二审法院之间的审级职能。原判事实不清、证据不足，第二审人民法院查清事实的，不得发回重新审判。以事实不清、证据不足为由发回重新审判的案件，上诉、抗诉后，不得再次发回重新审判。下级人民法院不得通过降低案件管辖级别规避上级人民法院的监督。不得就事实和证据问题请示上级人民法院。这些规定，有助于落实十八届三中全会《决定》中“明确各级法院职能定位，规范上下级法院审级监督关系”的要求。第三，要高度重视办理死刑案件质量，确保死刑案件“零差错”。复核死刑案件，应当讯问被告人。辩护律师提出要求的，应当听取意见。对证据有疑问的，应当调查核实，必要时到案发地调查。第四，要建立健全科学合理、符合司法规律的办案绩效考评制度。重大、疑难、复杂案件，不能在法定期限内审结的，应当依法报请延长审理期限。不得以上诉率、改判率、发回重审率等单项考核指标评价办案质量和效果。
四是充分发挥各方作用，建立健全制约机制。防范冤假错案，不仅要强化法院和法官应尽的职责，更要积极争取社会各界的支持。《意见》主要有以下规定：第一，要严格依照法定程序和职责审判案件。人民法院不得与公安机关、人民检察院联合办案。第二，要充分发挥辩护律师在防范冤假错案上的重要作用。切实保障辩护人会见、阅卷、调查取证等辩护权利。辩护人申请调取证明被告人无罪、罪轻的证据，应当准许。第三，要坚持司法的群众路线，积极争取广大群众的支持。重大、疑难、复杂案件，可以邀请人大代表、政协委员、基层群众代表等旁听观审。第四，对确有冤错可能的控告和申诉，应当依法复查。原判决、裁定确有错误的，依法及时纠正。第五，要建立健全审判人员权责一致的办案责任制。审判人员依法履行职责，不受追究。对审判人员办理案件违反审判工作纪律或者徇私枉法的，依照有关审判工作纪律和法律的规定追究责任。
赞